yes, a logical deduction is true if it stands! that is why we know that the moon is made of green cheese. because, see, if Huey Lewis says it's hip to be square, then the moon is made of green cheese. Huey Lewis says it's hip to be square. therefore the moon is made of green cheese.

thank you also, Geareye, for helping is demonstrate why logic that is absent of any soundness is useless.

maybe you're better off talking about rainbows. you don't seem to have a any idea of what you're talking about when it comes to anything else. mostly you seem to just be trying to get as abstract as possible to hide your real opinions, with the consequence that, if we take what you say on face value, you are saying essentially nothing.

True, applied to the extreme all that there is to be said about anything is essentially nothing. Particles floating around, it's only our feelings that make connections such as humans, males, females, slick, xanthe, tat, keyboard, whatever. Depending on what 'level of reality' you are willing to accept, some connections stand while others don't.

The deduction I made has evident analogies to a real life condition. Which means that the logical pathways that apply to the theoretical reasoning are transferable to the actual life, if the reasoning stands.

Now, as it is so obvious to you, would you care to explain why the reasoning was mistaken or is your intellectual capacity sufficient to simply call people stupid?

It makes me sad you missed me in my prime, stripeypants. I used to argue too, but I burnt out and now I mostly just derail threads for fun.

I didn't miss it entirely. I've been reading the forums off and on for a long time.

I try to just do 101 in short bursts, and I also try to do most of it in non-hostile places. I teach a class once a quarter on trans 101 topics, and it is so refreshing because the students have a background already in human sexuality, and even if they disagree they know it is an explanatory session and not a debate.

I dunno, like the older I get and the less swayed I am by mysterious assholes the less appeal romanticized vampires have for me (even outside twilight verse, Anne Rice's vampires are all dickheads to the extreme).

I guess I'd rather have the sunlight._________________Samsally the GrayAce

I dunno, like the older I get and the less swayed I am by mysterious assholes the less appeal romanticized vampires have for me (even outside twilight verse, Anne Rice's vampires are all dickheads to the extreme).

I guess I'd rather have the sunlight.

Haha, same here. I got way into Anne Rice's vampires and then over time realized I was apalled by them.

I love it when we get it, but I love how mild the weather is most of the time. Just have to make sure to get some vitamin D.

Geareye, you have not actually made a deduction. you have not said anything. your statements are empty. even now you're making yet more "philosophy major dropout" attempts at meaningless abstractions, presumably to try to look intelligent and objective.

your refusal to ever address the point that men and women have different cultural scripts and narratives surrounding the issue of being approached by someone who seems threatening. you refused to deal with that fact and instead tried to insist that there is no difference, none at all, which is empirically false. you are not talking about reality, you are not even talking about logical deductions, you are talking about empty abstractions you have made up. so come back when you're willing to talk about a social phenomenon and not the made-up abstractions you have tried to fit over it.

Last edited by ShadowCell on Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:45 pm; edited 1 time in total

It makes me sad you missed me in my prime, stripeypants. I used to argue too, but I burnt out and now I mostly just derail threads for fun.

I didn't miss it entirely. I've been reading the forums off and on for a long time.

I try to just do 101 in short bursts, and I also try to do most of it in non-hostile places. I teach a class once a quarter on trans 101 topics, and it is so refreshing because the students have a background already in human sexuality, and even if they disagree they know it is an explanatory session and not a debate.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I'm grateful you're throwing your knowledge and perspective our way when you can, at any rate.

We aren't exactly what I'd call non-hostile, though._________________Samsally the GrayAce

Geareye, you have not actually made a deduction. you have not said anything. your statements are empty. even now you're making yet more "philosophy major dropout" attempts at meaningless abstractions, presumably to try to look intelligent and objective.

your refusal to ever address the point that men and women have different cultural scripts and narratives surrounding the issue of being approached by someone who seems threatening. you refused to deal with that fact and instead tried to insist that there is no difference, none at all, which is empirically false. you are not talking about reality, you are not even talking about logical deductions, you are talking about empty abstractions you have made up. so come back when you're willing to talk about a social phenomenon and not the made-up abstractions you have tried to fit over it.

My apologies, I thought you were refering to the 'group b-group a and solidarity vs war' part and not to the previous argument.

My point on the original topic was that while women face the situation of 'being approached by a stranger' and its potential dangers more often than men, that doesn't mean that the nature of 'being approached by a stranger' changes depending on whom it's applied. It is a simple event. Your relation to it doesn't change it.

Think of it in terms of a gun being shot at you. No matter how many times you've been threatened to be shot in your life, no matter how many times you've already been shot in your life and no matter how your previous wounds still hurt , a gunshot is a gunshot. Are you going to experience differently from a person who's never been shot before in its life, especially if it hits you in an open wound? Of course, no one doubts that. But it's still the same gunshot.

this "nature of being approached by a stranger" thing is yet another meaningless abstraction attempting to avoid the actual issue and impose over everyone a uniformity that does not actually exist. there is no "nature of being approached by a stranger." otherwise there would not be these discrepancies in rape and assault statistics and these differing cultural scripts. basic human experience bears this out.

if the "nature of being approached" really was the same, then where do those differences come from?

It makes me sad you missed me in my prime, stripeypants. I used to argue too, but I burnt out and now I mostly just derail threads for fun.

I didn't miss it entirely. I've been reading the forums off and on for a long time.

I try to just do 101 in short bursts, and I also try to do most of it in non-hostile places. I teach a class once a quarter on trans 101 topics, and it is so refreshing because the students have a background already in human sexuality, and even if they disagree they know it is an explanatory session and not a debate.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I'm grateful you're throwing your knowledge and perspective our way when you can, at any rate.

this "nature of being approached by a stranger" thing is yet another meaningless abstraction attempting to avoid the actual issue and impose over everyone a uniformity that does not actually exist. there is no "nature of being approached by a stranger." otherwise there would not be these discrepancies in rape and assault statistics and these differing cultural scripts. basic human experience bears this out.

if the "nature of being approached" really was the same, then where do those differences come from?

The difference comes from the emotional/biological/social luggage one unfortunately has to carry. Why does one have to carry such luggage and why do individuals of each group and even different individuals in the same group carry different luggage? Because our society is a problematic/unjust/unhealthy/whatever system with discriminations.

Consider this: in your ideal society with no priviliges and no lack of balance and whatever else you would personally expect from it would you expect 'being approached by strangers' to function in a different way for men and for women? Assuming that the answer is no, it means that 'being approached by strangers' is possible to function in the same way for both and the problems we are facing in our current society in such situations stem from elsewhere and not from it.

yes, it is a meaningless abstraction to regard "being approached by a stranger" as "a physical interaction of physical objects." that is precisely what you have done; you have tried to reduce a complex social phenomenon down to a set of physical interactions that are irrelevant to the topic. yet basic human experience shows us that "being approached by a stranger" is not just some interaction of physical bodies. the important stuff--the stuff you handwave away as "emotional/biological/social luggage"--is the whole point of the discussion, and you are desperately trying to shove it to the side and pretend that it doesn't really have to matter. well, as it turns out, it actually does matter and once you've shoved it to the side, you are left with vacuous claims like

and since you have tried to abstract away as "emotional/biological/social luggage" every problem that may or may not result from "being approached by a stranger," you are left with an empty claim like "it means that 'being approached by strangers' is possible to function in the same way for both and the problems we are facing in our current society in such situations stem from elsewhere and not from it."

so, no, you are still talking about empty and irrelevant generalities, and the more you do, the clearer you make it appear that you desperately want to avoid talking about the real point.

yes, it is a meaningless abstraction to regard "being approached by a stranger" as "a physical interaction of physical objects." that is precisely what you have done; you have tried to reduce a complex social phenomenon down to a set of physical interactions that are irrelevant to the topic. yet basic human experience shows us that "being approached by a stranger" is not just some interaction of physical bodies. the important stuff--the stuff you handwave away as "emotional/biological/social luggage"--is the whole point of the discussion, and you are desperately trying to shove it to the side and pretend that it doesn't really have to matter. well, as it turns out, it actually does matter and once you've shoved it to the side, you are left with vacuous claims like

and since you have tried to abstract away as "emotional/biological/social luggage" every problem that may or may not result from "being approached by a stranger," you are left with an empty claim like "it means that 'being approached by strangers' is possible to function in the same way for both and the problems we are facing in our current society in such situations stem from elsewhere and not from it."

so, no, you are still talking about empty and irrelevant generalities, and the more you do, the clearer you make it appear that you desperately want to avoid talking about the real point.

First things first, social phenomena can be described by the set of particles that are involved in them and the physical forces that take effect.
The problem that you, I and all the rest of humanity wouldn't be able to interpret such data if it was given to us in this way, doesn't change that in the end all there is to is is particles and forces.

Now, to the point at hand.
Apparently you and I had different discussions then. I had one where I tried to say that since we can define stranger interaction and watch it work out in a unhealthy way in a privileged society and in an ok way in an ideal society, it means that whatever problems arise when someone is approached by a stranger in our society must stem from some other factor than the approach itself, otherwise we wouldn't be able to have an 'ok' approach in ideal societies.

I repeatedly stated that I don't doubt that in our society women who are approached by starngers will feel differently than men in most of the cases. But this doesn't mean that there is something weird/privileged/unfair/whatever in approaching others that causes women to be harmed more times than men.

Which is kinda funny when you think about how they stem from myths about horribly ugly monsters that used to piss on churches when they weren't eating people. Like, imagine a corpse all bloated from decaying and that's pretty much what vampires originated as (I assume because somebody got spooked and decided to dig up an actual corpse, then flipped their shit at what they found.)

I'm not actually sure how much of that is true, but it makes a fun story at any rate. Especially when compared to Anne Rice's, True Blood's, and even Twilight's suave hyper attractive predatory hunks._________________Samsally the GrayAce

...Totally not admitting to having any Charlaine Harris novels in my personal library.

(brightly)"So, umm, how 'bout this weather, eh? 'Welcome to Spring,' know what I mean?"_________________I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning